October 11, 1974 . . 

The Honorable William T. Keenan 

Executive Director 

Opinion No. H- 419 

Office of tha Govemor’r Committee 

on Aging 

Box 12786. Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 70711 

Re: Validity of Committee 

meeting under epan Meetings 

Act, Article 62S2-17, V. T. C. S. 

Dear 14r. Keenut: 

You have asked whether the Governor’s Committee on Aging complied 

with the requirements of the Open Meetinga Law, Art. 6252-17, V. T. C. S., 

under the circumstances set out below. 

The Committee on Aging is directed by a nine member board 

appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate,Art. 

694k, V. T. C. S., and aa such is a governmental body within the scope of 

the Open Meetings Law, Art. 6252-17, $1(c), V. T. C.S. 

On December 14, 1973. the Committee on Aging filed notice with 

the Secretary of State for a Committee meeting to be held 3 days later, 

stating as its subject: “Regular Meeting. ” At the meeting on December 

17, 1973, the Committee authorized the selection of a staff “grant review 

committee” led by the Committee’s Executive Director and the Board 

Chairman to act at a formal seesion on the Committee’s behalf@ encumber 

any federal funds which might become available prior to the year’s end. 

It was further resolved that a telephone poll would be taken of all members 

of the Governor’s Committee on Aging for the purpose of approving any 

grant review committee actbn. 

The federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare notified 

the Committee on Aging on December 27, 1973. of the availability of additional 

funds subject to their being obligated by the last day of the month. The next 

p. 1952 
/ -~ 

i The Honorable William T. Keenan page 2 (H-4191 

1 / ‘; 

I 

day the Executive Director, the Chairman of the Board, and the grant 

review committee met and did, in fact, act to encumber the federal 

monies, and a telephone poll was subsequently conducted. Thir formal 

meeting was without notice of any kind to the public althou& one news 

reporter war present. 

Subrequently at a regular meeting of the Committee a motion was 

passed to ratify the actions taken by the grant review committee on the 

preceding December 28. Although notice was given for this committee 

meeting, there was no ipecific indication in the notice that the Board 

would seek to ratify the prior acts of the grant review cornmitt&. In 

order to cure this defect the Committee posted notice for another meeting 

which would include consideration of ratification of the actions of prior 

meetings which were all identified by date only. At the meeting a motion 

wan adopted to ratify the a&oar of the prior meetinga. 

It is our conclusion that up:to and including this meeting the actions 

of the Committee relating to the tncunibrancs: of the federal funds did not 

fulfill the rubjeot-matter notice provision of $,3(A) (a) of the Open Meetinga 

kW. Notice that the subject-matter of a meeting will be ati Commitee’s 

“regular meeting” or thit the Committee intends to “ratify acti& of December 

17, 1973 meeting ” does not appri se the public, even in general terms, of 

what is to be discussed, or ratified. The expressed intention of the 

requirement of s 3A of Art. 6252-17, V. T. C. S., that 72 hour0 notice be 

given of a meeting, is not only to let the public know of the meeting but 

also to advise of the subject matter. Subsection 3A(a) provider: 

Written notice of the date, hour, place, and rublect 

of each meeting held by a governmental body shall 

begiven before the meeting as prescribed by this 

section. (Emphasis added) 

Thir Office stated in Attorney General Opinion M-494 (1969) : 

The notice should specifically set out any special or 

unusual matters to be considered or any matter in which 

the public has a particular interest, ae well ae general 

p. 1953 
The Honorable William T. Keenan page 3 (H-419) 

statements concerning routine matters. Of courre. an 

itemized agenda of all matters to be considered would 

be in strict compliance with the mandate of Section 3(A) (a) 

of the Act. 

Failure to substantially comply with the Open Meetings Law makes 

an otherwise valid action taken at a meeting of a governmental body voidable. 

Tovah Independent School District v. Pccos-Barstow Independent School District. 

466 S. W. 2d 377. 380 (Tex. Civ. App., San Antonio, 1971, no writ). Consequently, action taken by the Commitee without adequate notice under the 

Open Records Act was voidable. Even though a governmental body “may 

effectively ratify what it could theretofore have lawfully authorized in the 

first piace, ” Faurettv. King, 470 S. W. td 770, 773 (Tex. Civ. App., El 

Paso, 1971, no writ). we are unable to conclude that notice that the Committee 

intended to ratify actions taken at prior meetings, without specifying 

nhat action. would be sufficient notice to the public that the actions of the 

Committee encumbering federa) funds would be one subject of the meeting. 

In order to be sure that the prior actions were properly ratified, 

the Committee posted a more detailed notice for its meeting of August 30, 

1974. That notice included an item two stating: 

Ratification of Action of the grant review committee of December 28,1973 

encumbering Federal Funds, as follows 

Grants recommended for approval subject to polling the Board: 

United Action for the Elderly. Inc. - Mobile Meals, 

Austin - $45,265.00. 

San Antonio Nutritional Day Care Project for the 

Elderly, San Antonio - $17, 270. 

City of Abilcne Nutrition Progrdm for the -Aging - 

$182,717. DO. 

Approval of use of statt. funds as matching in Senior Community 

S<rrvic.*.tl, Corpus Christi. 

p. 1954 
The Honorable William T. Keenan page 4 (H-419) 

. 

Thir notice did specify what actions were sought to be taken and 

which matter8 were intended~ to be ratified. Consequently,~ the notice for 

the August 30, 1974 meeting was in conformity with the Open Meeting8 

Law. Aa ouch, the prior actions of the Committee encumbering federal 

funds, were validated when ratified on August 30. 1974. Faurett v. King. 

aupra. 

SUMMARY 

Notice that a meeting of a governmental body ir to 

be a regular meeting br that it ia to ratify action 

taken at another meeting, without lieting specific 

matter8 to be considered ia not sufficient notice 

to meet the requirementa of the Open Meeting6 Law, 

Article 6252-17. V. T. C. S. 

Very truly yours. 

Attorney General of Texar 

LARfiy F> YORK Firat Asa etant c --. 3fskx&iL 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

lg 

p. 1955